The case of Juan Resendiz-Ponce has brought to light the issue of whether the absence of specific criminal charges in a federal indictment can be rendered unimportant by a court. Mr. Resendiz-Ponce was accused by the U.S. government of attempting to enter the United States after deportation due to kidnapping charges. The defendant was alleged to use a fake identification and attempt to circumvent border patrol efforts.
A federal district court dismissed Mr. Resendiz-Ponce's effort to leave the case behind due to vague wording in the indictment. Attorneys for Resendiz-Ponce felt that the lack of an overt claim in the original claim including the use of the word "attempted" made it a weak legal motion. This district court determined that the defendant's presence in court was sufficient enough to clarify these issues.
The Ninth District Court of Appeals overturned the district court's decision, determining that specific language in an indictment is important to protecting litigants from wrongful conviction. The Supreme Court was the next stop for Resendiz-Ponce in an effort to clarify the issue of overt actions in legal motions at the federal level.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion for the Supreme Court in their 8-1 affirmation of the federal district court's original decision. The Court determined that the indictment explained every aspect of the alleged offense without omitting important details. While past case law at the federal level was in favor of the defendant's original assertion, Stevens and his colleagues determined that omissions in the language of and indictment can easily be corrected without throwing out a case.
Click here to learn more about Thomas Stagg of Simmons, Jannace & Stagg